I am about to be in college and I always hear people complain about politics and the current government, so then when I ask them who they are going to vote for 90% of the time they say "I don't vote"...
That is my thought process every time. NOONE who doesn't vote should have any say at all about politics their right to complain has been ended.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
One vote is statistically worthless.
Besides, I reserve the right to complain, express my opinion, or be educated about anything, even if I don't participate directly.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
*Raises Hand* Um, I've not been allowed to vote, being underage n'all, am I allowed to complain?
'Cause, you know, I have every intention of voting this next election.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
One of my economics professors worked out a proof that showed that it wasn't economically rational to vote.
That said, he still votes in every election.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If we vote, we feel a sense of ownership in the process, the candidates, and the outcome.
If we don't vote, we are consigning ourselves to a more non-participatory role, even though we may have a stake in the outcome.
In any case, we're stakeholders. But it's our choice how we personally influence the outcome.
Sorry, just got done reading a bunch of academic writing for my class.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MC -- do you vote?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Compulsory voting anyone?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:One of my economics professors worked out a proof that showed that it wasn't economically rational to vote.
Now you've got me wondering how.
Assuming your professor was only talking about national elections, I can imagine he/she would be quite right. Possibly state elections too, depending on where you live.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I too resent when our fellow citizens do not participate in the affairs of the republic (local or national), considering it is one of the most important things we should do. Often I hear people giving the excuse that it won't make any difference. Usually it is just because they are too lazy. When the People lose faith in democracy we might as well have already lost it. To think that we, as the masses, are not the government is to admit that we are no better than slaves....and I do not keep the company of willing slaves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I got into a huge argument with my best friend last year over voting. I asked her for months to read up on the candidates (hell, it was just a midterm, it wasn't that hard), and she kept saying she would, right up until election day, when she claimed she didn't have time and wouldn't vote.
When it came down to it, she just didn't care. She had absolutely zero interest in the political process, in being a good citizen, in voting, in any of it, and that seriously bothered me. When I tried to explain to her how I felt, she exploded and told me her voting or lack thereof had nothing to do with me or our friendship and I should back off and never mention it again. Frankly I think she overreacted, and was offended by the fact that my opinion of her was lowered by the fact that she didn't care about voting. But her being a bad citizen did, and does, matter to me, in the same sense that her smoking or drinking excessively would bother me as well, and I would say something then too, even if it wasn't strictly involved in my life.
I think it bothers me so much, because it really only requires a minimum of effort. Sure, you can spend hours and hours reading all the relevant data about the issues and form opinions and then read for hours on all the different candidates (and I think a really responsible citizen WOULD do that), but it's really just as simple and seeing what elections are going on, who is running, what they stand for, and then making a choice. I don't think it'd take more than an hour to figure all that out, but people blow their time downloading music, reading fanfic and watching TV instead, so yeah, that's galling to me, that they care THAT little about the future of their nation, and that they care so little about their role in the process and the outcome their apathy will have on their own lives.
I'm sure someone will take issue with my feelings on the matter, but that's just how I feel in my heart of hearts. I have less respect for people who choose not to vote. It's not a conscious choice, I didn't choose to not like non-voters, it's just the upwelling of disdain that magically comes from the little voter's booth in my head, and it controls my feelings on the subject.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Personally I can sort of understand people not voting because they're lazy or uninterested in politics even if I don't approve of such a stance. What I can't understand are people who think they're somehow making a statement by not voting. What kind of a statement is it if no one hears you? It seems to me by not voting and not participating they simply make it easier for people to ignore their demands.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I vote whenever I can. People fought long and hard to give me that right.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If you don't vote you have every right to complain.
Why?
Because whatever the political situation is...it wasn't your fault. You certainly didn't vote for it. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope. Not voting is expressing the strongest approval of the way things are, however they are. eg If a neighbor walks into your house and raids the refrigerator, not saying anything about it gives the strong impression that you are giving permission for another refrigerator raid. In common law, if you (or the previous owner) allowed the public to walk on a path across (what is now) your property, then the walkers' actions created a public easement after a certain set period of time. You can't close off the path without a major legal battle; which you probably won't win unless you get a crooked judge, or you can bribe the city council. Similarly if you allow a neighbor to build a fence on your property. After a certain set period of time, you can't force them to remove it without a major legal battle. Nor can you build anything on the side of your property which is on their side of the fence.
The higher up the wealth bracket that an individual is, the more likely it is for that individual to vote. Since wealth is the result of rational economic decisions, it's a bit absurd to argue that the most economicly rational people are acting irrationally by voting.
[ June 13, 2007, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I dunno. I vote sometimes, and sometimes I don't. Usually when I don't it's because there isn't anyone I want to vote for, or anyone I think should win. In that situation, I figure, it's best to leave the decision up to the rest of the country.
I'm also a strong believer in respecting a person's private political views, even if those views are different and incomprehensible. If a person doesn't want to vote, that's no ones business but their own.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Vote early and vote often, and if the parties don't do any better next presidential year, then write in Jimmy Carter, like I have for the last 10 years.
Actually, it also makes me mad when voters don't take time to check on the local candadates. Nationally, the School Board candidate that is listed first on the ballot is elected virtually every time. The local school board will have more effect on your life (taxes and quality of life even if you don't have kids in the system) than any old national President ever could. How many of you "informed" voters can even tell me one of the names, proposed for that office, on the last ballot you filled in?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The local school board will have more effect on your life (taxes and quality of life even if you don't have kids in the system) than any old national President ever could."
YEP!!! (short of martial law or nuclear war) Folks who can afford to live in an otherwise good neighborhood can often afford to send their kids to private school if their neighborhood public schools have a bad reputation.
For the cost of a private school, they can choose instead to make payments on a $100,000to$300,000 larger mortgage; or more, depending on the cost of area private schools and the number of children. With that larger mortgage, they can move to a neighborhood that has public schools with a good reputation. And they often do when their kids reach school age.
The more rapidly properties are turned over in a good neighborhood, the more discount on property values. ie The willingness to obtain a substantially larger mortgage to move out of a bad school district depresses property values. Which decreases the rate at which property appreciates in value and decreases the investment value of the property. Which in turn lowers ones credit rating: 1) causes higher interest rates on loans and thus larger payments for everything one buys on credit, 2) causes higher insurance payments, 3) creates a lower living standard, 4) and lowers the percentage of income available for savings and investment.
A school district with a bad reputation also decreases the retirement value of ones home, which means a lowered living standard upon retirement; especially considering reverse mortgages.
[ June 13, 2007, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I vote pretty much every time.
It doesn't bother me that other people don't vote. Most of them are ignorant, stupid or wrong anyway.
Besides, it makes my vote worth more.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
EVERY voice has a right to be heard loud and clear even when they don't vote. It is in the law and the U.S. Constitution! To say otherwise, to me, shows an absured belief that votes matter that much.
Lets put it this way, I had never voted in my life until my mid 20s because my wife's encouragement. The reason was simple to me. My vote didn't matter. I don't mean that in the usual negative way. The electorate voted the exact way that I would have if I voted. I know there are several places where this is the case. My voice about what should or should not happen was much more important than that casting of a ballet. My views heard by the right people confirmed for them the seriousness of their tasks.
Now, if I vote and I lose then my vote counted for nothing. It would be better for me to voice my concerns in such a way that it influences people who are disposed to vote will go my way. In other words, I see voting as a group rather than an individual action. The ones who go to vote are representative of the loudest voices and not necessarily the most dedicated civilians.
I vote more as a punctuating action rather than as a duty or a voice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:EVERY voice has a right to be heard loud and clear even when they don't vote.
Um....Why? In what way are we required to hear them?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:EVERY voice has a right to be heard loud and clear even when they don't vote.
Um....Why? In what way are we required to hear them?
Free speech? But I guess that means that they are allowed to speak...not that we have to listen.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I voted recently for the school board elections. I was actually fairly familiar with one pair of candidates, and I had fairly strong feelings about that particular race (and the person I voted for won, thank goodness). I think voting in local election is quite important, particularly because my vote counts for a whole lot more.
When I vote, I read the voter's pamphlet and do my best to be as informed as possible. I understand that statistically my vote probably doesn't matter all that much, particularly in larger elections. I voted for a third party candidate in the 2004 presidential elections because I didn't particularly like Kerry or Bush. (FYI, my state went for Kerry, so my actions did not affect the outcome -- Kerry didn't need my vote to win Oregon, and Bush didn't need my vote because apparently he didn't need to win Oregon at all).
I also try to stay involved by occasionally writing my senators and representative on issues I care about. I once even called my state legislator. It turns out that the local number listed on his site was not in fact a local office. I unintentionally called him at his home. Oops. He was very nice about it, though. He listened to what I had to say, then voted the other way anyway. (The bill was to require a prescription for sudafed -- I thought that putting it behind the counter was sufficient, so I didn't really want the bill to pass). Oh, well. I wonder how much trouble I'd get in for bringing it across state lines from Arizona...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've begun actively discouraging people from voting. I may actually make a campaign of it.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am in an area where politically, I am in the minority by a huge amount. So, almost everytime I have voted, my candidates have not won. Heck, half the ballot is Republican running uncontested. So, I'll admit, voting isn't always on the top of my list (and I do know one of the candidates for school board- or did at election time atleast). But, if there seems to be any chance my vote will matter, I definetely make it. And I know one year even though my candidate lost, the fact that he got 30% of the vote was a huge deal. so, sometimes the number of dissenters can worry a candidate, even if it can't get rid of them
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I've begun actively discouraging people from voting. I may actually make a campaign of it.
I'd vote for that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I've begun actively discouraging people from voting. I may actually make a campaign of it.
I'd vote for that.
Exactly.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
In the last election I voted in the primary but not in the actual election, for couple of reasons. First of all, neither of the candidates I voted for in the primary (I didn't realize there were more than two positions up for election until I turned up that day, but I hadn't even heard of all of the positions so I didn't vote for them) made it to the final election. Second, I'm an out of state college student, so I don't actually spend much time in my voting district. The third reason was that I didn't get my ballot until much later than I'd hoped, and I was really busy with school so I didn't have a chance to check up on the candidates I was unfamiliar with. I know that's something of an excuse, but my absentee ballot isn't exactly something I want to carry around with me all over the place where it might get lost or stolen, and the internet in my dorm room wasn't working properly that semester.
The board of ed was up for election the previous year, which was the first year I was old enough to vote. Unfortunately after many, many attempts, I didn't figure out how to request an absentee ballot. My town's website is horrendous. However, I was quite familiar with most of the candidates, having heard many of them talk two years prior, and I know who I would and wouldn't have voted for. I'm actually probably the most informed about my local positions and candidates, despite the fact that I don't really live there, and those are the positions most likely to get me voting (except probably the presidential elections).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I vote when there's some chance it will change the outcome of the particular election. If my vote is meaningless, I don't bother.
I prefer to participate in the country in ways which I feel are more meaningful and where my participation makes a difference. I write letters to my representatives. I try to influence others to change their ideas about things, I write letters to corporations and newspapers and individuals who have the power to make real change.
1 million votes for something vs. 1 million and 1 votes for it makes no difference. Point out to me any single meaningful election in the history of the country where a single citizen's vote changed the outcome and I might be persuaded. I don't think my vote counts... but I know my voice does.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There were a few congressional races in 2006 that were decided by less than 50 votes.
New Mexico in 2004 was decided by less than 500 votes, that would have changed the entire election.
Does one vote matter? Well maybe not, but if 500 people changed their mind about what did and didn't matter, the world would be a different place. It's a collective effort of individuals believing their vote makes a difference, and it does.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I said the right to be heard . . . and you have a right not to listen, even if you don't have the right to shut them up.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I have a problem with voting for the lesser of two evils. If there are no good candidates, I'm not going to vote for the least-bad one just because I should vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would, if only to reduce the damage.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I can understand why some people don't vote. Most Americans are living comfortably without having to know a thing about politics or government. The right to vote just isn't that important right now. Until people start feeling the effects of an intefering or corrupt government, voting turnouts won't go up.
My mom told me she voted all the time when she was in her 20's. Now she doesn't care anymore. She told me that she realizes that "it doesn't matter who I vote for because they're all the same." So...part of me sees my mom's 50 some years of experience and trusts her, but I'll still vote--if only because I know how many people have fought and suffered for the right.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: How many of you "informed" voters can even tell me one of the names, proposed for that office, on the last ballot you filled in?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Good! You have distinguished yourself. Now, did you have any idea of the motivation (goals or objectives) that person had for placing their name on that ballot?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yep. And I knew the (publically stated, at least) goals and motivations of most of the other candidates on the ballot for that office as well. Including the three I voted for, and the one I would have explicitly voted against, if there was an option for that.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I have heard articulated in (poorly attended) candidates night speaches: "My child has been in so much trouble the last two years, that I have to do something to make sure he graduates." "The county attorney wouldn't let my son play basketball after one measly minor-in-consumption violation. I want to stop his power grab." And my own personal favorite: "I always thought it would be funnnnn to be on the school board." All three of the above quoted candidates were successful.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
dkw, you are to be commended. And, the fact that we are still here after 230+ years shows that we do generally have an informed electorate. However, I wish we, as voters, would pay as much attention to the local issues as we do to the quadriannual national beauty contests for president. Thats where Mighty Cow's one vote is going to make a difference.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I will finally be able to vote for the next election. I will definitely vote, even though my vote means nothing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I said the right to be heard . . . and you have a right not to listen, even if you don't have the right to shut them up.
You don't have the right to be heard, you just have the right to say what you want.
In order for you to be heard, somebody has to listen to you. You don't have that right.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
If 538 Floida Democrats had gotten out and voted for Gore in 2000, he'd have won the state and the presidency. The vote came down to .01% of voters. It might not be the dramtic one vote you were looking for, MC, but it's a decent example.
Personally, I don't encourage my friends to go vote. They're all Democrats. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe if I had 500 votes, or 1,000 votes my going out and voting would make a difference.
Instead, I try to influence others to vote, or I try to influence the officials to do something right once they are elected.
Lots of people vote, so one vote means very little. Few people take the time and effort to speak out, so one voice means more.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, you try to get others to do what you're too lazy to do yourself?
It's not worth your effort to vote, but it's worth theirs?
[ June 13, 2007, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So, you try to get others to do what you're too lazy to do yourself?
It's not worth your effort to vote, but it's worth theirs?
Thus is the American way! Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I vote mostly out of principle. I don't have a whole lot of hope as a Democrat in Georgia these days, at least in the presidential elections, but I was a bit encouraged by our higher than expected showing in '04 (like 37% I think).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You can call it lazy, I call it smart. Maybe it makes you feel an important part of the process to think your one vote counts. Until you can show me one vote counting, I simply don't believe it. May as well throw one grain of rice off your plate and pretend you've done something to lose weight.
A thousand votes might make a difference. That's why people running for office don't just go out and vote for themselves and hope they win, they try to convince others to vote for them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a shame that the cynical people who want to see change in our government can't be bothered to vote. Seems to me that the only people who have a voice, then, are the ones who're okay with the current slate of candidates.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
MC-
I think you're looking at things the wrong way. In Florida in 2000 2,909,176 voters went for Bush and 2,907,451 went for Gore, for a difference of 1,725 (the 537 is certified number after the recount, but let's just go with the pre-recount numbers for ease).
So, of the 2,909,176 voters for Bush, 1,724 were unnecessary. That means that 2,907,452 individuals' votes mattered. Meaning, if you voted for Bush in Florida in 2000, you had a 99.95% likelihood of your vote "mattering" in the sense that it helped decide the immediate presidential outcome.
To contrast that, in UT (where I voted) Bush won by a total of 512,168 vs. 201,73, meaning my vote's post-election likelihood of making a difference was only 39.39%.
If what you're looking for is a 100% guarantee that your vote wont be extraneous, there are local elections that come down to that. However, even on the national scale, particularly in places with political parity, individiual votes do have a high likelihood of making a difference.
*Caveat- Obviously all these calculations are rough estimates and don't reflect many of the subtelties of our elections. However, the point is that the only "wasted" votes are those that are extraneous to deciding a winner. The likelihood of yours being one of those can be quite small, depending on where you live.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I vote pretty much every time.
It doesn't bother me that other people don't vote. Most of them are ignorant, stupid or wrong anyway.
Besides, it makes my vote worth more.
So true, so true.
When I think about not voting because I hate the options or because say voting democrat in Utah is pretty ineffectual, I realize there are people voting because, "It's their civic duty and as a good republican/democrat they support the party who thinks for them." Or, "That candidate was better looking and has a better sounding name."
It's enough to make me run to the polls.
edit: Also if you think your state is tied up in a particular party I'd direct your attention towards Arizona. Previously it was a red stronghold just like all its neighbors, but its looking bluer and bluer every year. I would not be surprised if it goes to the Dems come 2008 if not by 2012.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I took a 3-week theater workshop a couple years ago. One day about two weeks in, the instructor talked to us about effort and motivation and progress. He said that when he lived in Paris they used to use balances to weigh out groceries, so if you wanted a kilo of carrots they'd put a 1-kg weight on one side of the balance and pile carrots onto the other side. Spending effort to reach a goal is putting a carrot on the balance. Unless you are near the tipping point there is no discernible effect. Even so, to reach your goal you must keep adding carrots, and realize that you are making progress even when you don't see it.
The parallels to casting votes and tipping an election should be pretty clear.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
If you vote, you are agreeing to abide by the decision of the majority.
If you don't vote, you are agreeing to no such thing.
If 10 other people tell me, "We're going to vote on whether you give us all your stuff," I'm not going to participate. If I vote, and I lose, I am then bound to hand over my stuff.
If I don't vote, they are just stealing. I can hand over my stuff through threat of violence, or refuse, fight, possibly get beat up and robbed anyway, but either way at least I didn't agree to the process.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then choose to vote for whoever you want, you can always write in a candidate.
If you don't like who the major candidates are, then pick someone else, but that excuse strikes me as a cop-out.
Besides, you can vote for a major candidate and still reserve the right to protest. You aren't signing away your rights by voting, you're exercising them.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I wish they would make Election Day- at least, the day of the presidential election- a holiday.
My ballot is mailed to me; I have very little excuse for not casting a ballot. If I had to give up my lunch hour, stand in a long line, and possibly get harrassed by police or by agitators for a candidate, I can certainly see wondering if it was worth the bother.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You can call it lazy, I call it smart. Maybe it makes you feel an important part of the process to think your one vote counts. Until you can show me one vote counting, I simply don't believe it. May as well throw one grain of rice off your plate and pretend you've done something to lose weight.
What bothers me more than the laziness is the implication that your time is worth more than the time of those whom you try to get to vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I wish they would make Election Day- at least, the day of the presidential election- a holiday.
My ballot is mailed to me; I have very little excuse for not casting a ballot. If I had to give up my lunch hour, stand in a long line, and possibly get harrassed by police or by agitators for a candidate, I can certainly see wondering if it was worth the bother.
I agree about making it a holiday.
Where do you get harrassed like that? Are you voting from Jalalabad?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You can call it lazy, I call it smart. Maybe it makes you feel an important part of the process to think your one vote counts. Until you can show me one vote counting, I simply don't believe it. May as well throw one grain of rice off your plate and pretend you've done something to lose weight.
It happens, but it is rare. From a Snopes article debunking many of the popular (and incorrect) one-vote claims:
quote: In 1839, Marcus "Landslide" Morton was indeed elected governor of Massachusetts by one vote. Of the 102,066 votes cast by the good people of that state, he received exactly 51,034. Had his count been 51,033, the election would have been thrown into the Legislature, where he probably would not have won.
"Landslide" also made the record books in 1842 when he won the same office again by one vote, this time in the Legislature. (In those days, Massachusetts governors were elected for terms of one year.)
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I always vote. The way things are set up here, campaign funding amounts are calculated based on the number of votes in the preceding election. So if I vote Tory, and the riding goes to the NDP, my vote will count the next time around. The Tories will receive that bit more of funding. It's not huge or dramatic, but it IS a measurable thing. My vote DOES make a difference.
Once or twice I have voted for a candidate I knew had no chance of winning. Why? Because it's MY vote, and MY voice, and I will darn well say what I want with it. Even though the candidate doesn't win, I've still spoken and been counted. And to me, that has value in itself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Why? Because it's MY vote, and MY voice, and I will darn well say what I want with it. Even though the candidate doesn't win, I've still spoken and been counted. And to me, that has value in itself.
Hear, hear!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I wish they would make Election Day- at least, the day of the presidential election- a holiday.
My ballot is mailed to me; I have very little excuse for not casting a ballot. If I had to give up my lunch hour, stand in a long line, and possibly get harrassed by police or by agitators for a candidate, I can certainly see wondering if it was worth the bother.
I agree about making it a holiday.
Where do you get harrassed like that? Are you voting from Jalalabad?
I don't- because I don't have to go to a polling place to cast my ballot. I can mail it in.
But I've heard some pretty grim stories from other states (never mind other countries- the struggles some people have to cast a ballot in some other countries could easily fill several topics by themselves.)
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Once or twice I have voted for a candidate I knew had no chance of winning. Why? Because it's MY vote, and MY voice, and I will darn well say what I want with it.
Darn tootin. I voted Libertarian in the Governor's race since the big two seemed to be campaigning on a platform of how much or little they intended to be like Jeb. (Christ claimed he'd be like Jeb. Not seeing it so far.)
I figured my vote would be a reminder to the GOP that some of us still believe in the old school platform of the party: more local control, less interference. They might be taking that too far with the property tax cuts, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I figured my vote would be a reminder to the GOP that some of us still believe in the old school platform of the party: more local control, less interference.
A much bigger reminder would be to get involved. Start going to your local party meetings every week or month or whatever. If you really want to make difference, take Thomas Jefferson's advice: "show up early and bring a pen." That way you're always made secretary of the meeting, because nobody else wants to write stuff down. There you are--instant influence.
I feel your pain with the Republicans--they are forgetting their roots, lately. It's up to us to remind them, and to do so in an active manner.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I figured my vote would be a reminder to the GOP that some of us still believe in the old school platform of the party: more local control, less interference.
It's worth pointing out that "old-school" here means "since about 1968."
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:(Christ claimed he'd be like Jeb. Not seeing it so far.)
Oh, that was weird. Trying to figure out where I had seen that in the Bible.
Then I remembered you must mean Crist.... Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What bothers me more than the laziness is the implication that your time is worth more than the time of those whom you try to get to vote.
You seem to be of the opinion that voting is a good thing for people to do. If I'm encouraging others to vote, am I not doing them a favor? I don't imagine you would be upset if I had a voting drive in my neighborhood and put up fliers reminding people when voting day is and where the nearest polling place is located.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If I'm encouraging others to vote, am I not doing them a favor?
You obviously don't think so, or else you'd take your own medicine.
Either you think your time is worth more that that of the people you try to get to vote, or you're trying to get them to do something that you think is not in their best interest. Neither option speaks well of you.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: It's worth pointing out that "old-school" here means "since about 1968."
Well, sure, Tom. '68 is ancient history.
And you're right, Jenna, I totally misspelled that. :blush:
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:One vote is statistically worthless.
What a bunch of nonsense. A few hundred people in Florida a few years back disagree.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You obviously don't think so, or else you'd take your own medicine.
Either you think your time is worth more that that of the people you try to get to vote, or you're trying to get them to do something that you think is not in their best interest. Neither option speaks well of you.
You're pretty dang judgmental about your interpretation of my motivations - how does that speak for you?
If I'm not willing to spend my time voting, and someone else is, then they obviously feel that their time voting is well spent, and I feel that my time voting is not well spent. If don't like eggplant, and someone else does, and I tell them about the all-you-can-eat eggplant buffet down the street, does that mean I'm a stuck up jerk?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:One vote is statistically worthless.
What a bunch of nonsense. A few hundred people in Florida a few years back disagree.
I guess in your math 1 = 100.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I guess in your math 1 = 100.
You're being deliberately obtuse, it seems to me.
If we're really going to examine this statistically, in a population of hundreds of millions, approximately five-hundred people is much, much LESS than 1%.
But it doesn't seem you're truly interested in examining this 'statistically', otherwise you would've noticed that already. <1% of the population of the United States was decisive in determing the President of the United States, less than ten years ago. Statistically, that's pretty compelling information that means that yes, in fact, even single votes count.
Single votes even count in so-called 'useless' elections, mostly because of people like yourself-how do you think that certain elections are deemed uncontested? Certainly a portion of that decision must result from people like you who give up before the election is even held, and don't vote.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You're not getting the point of what I'm saying. I've already said that a few hundred people could make a difference. Unfortunately, when I go to the poling place I don't get 200 votes. I know exactly how much my vote is worth: 1 vote.
Tell me honestly. Do you think that any national, or statewide election in our lifetime is ever going to be decided by one vote? Because if not, my one vote will NEVER make a difference in any of those elections.
I honestly don't understand what's so hard about the concept. It's really quite simple math. Here are the election results from the 2006 California gubernatorial election (from Wikipedia):
Arnold Schwarzenegger 4,850,157 Phil Angelides 3,376,733 Peter Camejo 205,995 Art Olivier 114,329 Janice Jordan 69,934 Edward C. Noonan 61,901
Now help me out here, how should I have voted to change the outcome of that election?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If I'm not willing to spend my time voting, and someone else is, then they obviously feel that their time voting is well spent, and I feel that my time voting is not well spent.
But you said that you encourage people to go out and vote. You are trying to get people do to something which is in your best interest, but which you believe is against their best interest.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not sure why you think I believe voting is against anyone's best interest. One vote has no real power. A lot of votes can. I'm attempting to empower a group of people, by making their collective group of votes meaningful, where one would not be.
If any one person in the group doesn't want to vote, I'm fine with that. It makes sense, in fact! It's only as a group that they can make a difference. Heck, that's the entire point behind a party system. A whole group of people work together to put their candidate into office or get their measure passed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I honestly don't understand what's so hard about the concept. It's really quite simple math.
How can that possibly be, though? If everyone felt like you, where would we be? You're not an island, MightyCow. By the curious logic you're using, people shouldn't get an education and obtain better employment, because right now, this very instant, it's not going to make a difference and in fact cost time and money.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:(Christ claimed he'd be like Jeb. Not seeing it so far.)
Oh, that was weird. Trying to figure out where I had seen that in the Bible.
Then I remembered you must mean Crist....
I have a great aunt and uncle named Christ, pronounced "krist."
He's a minister, amusingly enough.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
So you agree with me. I need to convince more people to vote.
Which candidate should I have voted for there to change the election? You seem to have forgotten to answer.
Are you really equating my vote to an education? How is my one vote going to benefit me later?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure why you think I believe voting is against anyone's best interest. One vote has no real power. A lot of votes can. I'm attempting to empower a group of people, by making their collective group of votes meaningful, where one would not be.
It's like there's a disconnect here. Don't you see the absolutely critical link between 'a lot of votes' and 'one vote'? You literally cannot have one without the other.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Obviously you can, because 'lots of people' voted in the last California gubernatorial election, and I didn't.
I have to share a secret with you though. If you look up the numbers on the post I made above with the vote count, I added one vote to the runner up. It's just as though I voted for him.
You didn't even notice, did you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So you agree with me. I need to convince more people to vote.
Which candidate should I have voted for there to change the election? You seem to have forgotten to answer.
Are you really equating my vote to an education? How is my one vote going to benefit me later?
Of course I don't agree with you. I didn't forget to answer, your question was specious. And becomes even more absurd when you examine state and local elections, wherein individual votes hold proportionally more power. Especially in local elections. Or are you suggesting that the elections you listed were the only elections?
Yes, I'm equating your lack of voting to an education. You ask, "Why should I vote? This little bit of input I have right now is infinitesimal, it makes no difference in and of itself in the grand scheme of things."
Well, then. Why get an education? On any one given school day (election), your hour's note-taking (vote) won't make any serious impact on achieving your degree (election victory) when compared to the scores and scores or even hundreds and hundreds of credit hours (total votes) you need to succeed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Are you really equating my vote to an education? How is my one vote going to benefit me later?
It benefits you later in precisely the same way that one single vote benefits you later-by putting you incrementally closer to your goal, be it an 'A', or your candidate winning the election.
quote:I have to share a secret with you though. If you look up the numbers on the post I made above with the vote count, I added one vote to the runner up. It's just as though I voted for him.
You didn't even notice, did you.
Oh, very clever. So go to a guy who's just finished a doctorate, and have him just take a few pages out of the reams of notes he's written. You wouldn't even notice, would you? And if you can't notice, clearly it doesn't make any REAL difference!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Your analogy is completely meaningless. I don't get to add up my lifetime votes and apply them all at once.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*laugh* It's not completely meaningless at all. Each vote you make, it's putting your goal one step-no matter how small-closer to achievement.
This conversation is ridiculous. You can use whatever lazy justification you'd like for dodging your responsibilities as a citizen, but it simply doesn't wash. Just because something cannot be decisively affected by you personally doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Fortunately, not everyone feels like you do, otherwise we'd be in big trouble.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I have to share a secret with you though. If you look up the numbers on the post I made above with the vote count, I added one vote to the runner up. It's just as though I voted for him.
You didn't even notice, did you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like the education analogy Rakeesh.
Clever, and apt.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Each vote you make, it's putting your goal one step-no matter how small-closer to achievement.
I honestly don't understand your reasoning here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, you vote for a purpose, a goal, right rollainm? To get the candidate you desire into office govern and represent you.
Every time you make your voice heard directly-through the only utterly direct means we have in our system-you are affecting the outcome of that election, which in turn affects the outcome of future elections, and makes it more likely-even by a small amount-each time that your goal is attained, either in the present or in the future.
--------
Thanks, Lyrhawn Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't see how that follows Rakeesh. Are you suggesting that because 3.3 million people voted for Phil Angelides in 2006, he's one step closer to being Governor?
Besides, I might vote differently each time I vote, ending up in no net gain. Say I really liked the republican candidate one election, but the democratic candidate the next election. Does that mean those votes each furthered some sort of imaginary future event a tiny amount, but offset each other?
I really don't get the education analogy at all. It makes zero sense to me. Each election is an individual outcome. My vote always counts the same, no matter how many times I vote.
In fact, it sounds like you're suggesting that if I vote, it might encourage other people to vote in a similar manner in the future. That's the only way I can make sense of your "small amount increase" theory.
How is that fundamentally different from my explicitly encouraging others to vote?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In fact, it sounds like you're suggesting that if I vote, it might encourage other people to vote in a similar manner in the future. That's the only way I can make sense of your "small amount increase" theory.
Because talk is cheap, and you should practice what you preach. Otherwise, you're just being lazy. Why the hell should I (playing the role of the apathetic voter) waste my time voting if you're too busy to as well? It totally undermines the entire argument you're supposedly making.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I see what you're saying.
Like I stated earlier in this thread, I vote out of principle, not necessarily for the purpose of making an impact. At least, this is my thinking as a Georgia resident. Perhaps I'd feel more like you do if I lived in a swing state, or even if the majority party here wasn't so overwhelming.
But here, I make no claims to the effectiveness of my vote. And I'm not convinced of the accuracy of your claim that my vote does in fact have a meaningful impact. It's a great optimistic approach that I'll grant would be effective on a larger scale. If an increasing amount of people casting similar votes felt this way, then sure, there would be change. But you can't say with certainty that my single vote will have any meaningful effect in one single election or in the next 50.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
MightyCow,
I'm curious. How DO you go about encouraging others to vote?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...Like I stated earlier in this thread, I vote out of principle...
I totally respect that, and am genuinely baffled as to why that's not sufficient reason to vote.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Because when it comes right down to it, I can't practically justify WHY I vote. To be totally blunt, my reason for voting is purely selfish. It accomplishes nothing in the real world. I assume that's precisely why MC doesn't vote himself (correct me if I'm wrong).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I actually do vote in local elections, because I believe that there is a tiny yet real chance that my vote could make a difference.
I make my voice heard by writing letters, discussing important issues with people, supporting causes I believe in.
How about this Rakeesh, I vote in my mind out of principle. It's like I voted, because I'm being principled, and it's also like I voted because my thinking about Phil Angeledes winning has exactly the same effect as me voting for him.
[edit to add] rollainm: I want a real say in the political process. I believe that's the goal of democracy, that's what our country is all about, that everyone gets a say.
That probably worked great when there were very few people, but with millions voting, one vote becomes statistically meaningless. If I still want to make my voice meaningful, I need to work harder. I need to do more than just push a button and pretend I made a real difference.
If you look at it that way, I'm the one being a responsible member of society. What I'm doing might actually change the outcome of an election. Making a couple scratches on an absentee ballot is really just making yourself feel better.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"I make my voice heard by writing letters, discussing important issues with people, supporting causes I believe in."
That's really awesome. But what that does is promote awareness of the issues, not the act of voting.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Well, I'm not driving people to the voting place and putting them in line, but I don't want to physically force people to vote, I want to change their minds so that society changes, and so that perhaps they vote differently than they would have.
I do actually get together with groups of people before local elections, and we go over the issues, and I make my points about why I'm voting for specific issues, and why I think they should do so also.
I get further removed from the process by supporting groups who are for or against specific issues, and those groups try to convince people to vote as they (and I) believe. The further away from the individual process of voting, the more people you might influence.
I believe it's sometimes referred to as Grass Roots. I call it "I don't vote, but hopefully I can convince other people to." Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you look at it that way, I'm the one being a responsible member of society. What I'm doing might actually change the outcome of an election. Making a couple scratches on an absentee ballot is really just making yourself feel better.
For me to truly buy into your argument, you'd be doing both. The way to maximize your impact would be to try to convince large groups of people towards your ideals, and take the principled step of voting yourself-both for the tangible impact it has, and to help persuade others.
Grass Roots don't include not voting. But at least you vote SOMETIMES.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Rakeesh,
It seems to me MC is far less "lazy" than the person who consistently votes against the majority in every election, but who never speaks up, discusses the issues, or even tells others why he voted for who or what. It's a different approach, for sure, but hardly lazy or even hypocritical in my opinion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not suggesting he's overall lazy. Just in that aspect.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
quote:...your hour's note-taking (vote) won't make any serious impact on achieving your degree (election victory)...
And that's why I skipped a lot of class. At some points though there's a good enough chance of an hour's work being the difference between honour roll or not that it makes sense to get out of bed. The same isn't true of voting. To make this fit to a national election, add in that you're only legally allowed to contribute about one second's worth of work and the rest has been assigned to millions of other people. I'd probably show up for the novelty or vague feeling that I'm Doing My Bit, but it's not like I'd be making a meaningful impact on the degree.
quote:If everyone felt like you, where would we be?
The value of votes would rise until he started occasionally voting, I'd guess.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
My confusion with MC's argument is that he seems to be defining "voting" and "speaking out" as mutually exclusive tasks... but they aren't. Voting is something that will take a few minutes, a couple of hours at most if turnout is extraordinarily good, out of one day every two years. Speaking out is something you can do every day, for as long as you want.
MC argues that his vote is irrelevant because its effect on the aggregate result is insignificant. But the amount of time spent waiting in line to vote, versus the amount of time available for "speaking out" outside of election day, is similarly insignificant. During the brief time you could have spent ensuring that one vote matches your exact preferences, do you really think you'll make a larger impact elsewhere? Are the other 729 days' worth of speaking out in that election cycle insufficient, so that you need just one more day to really make a difference?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Voting is something that will take a few minutes, a couple of hours at most if turnout is extraordinarily good, out of one day every two years."
It took me nearly four hours in '04. Had I not had the day off, I wouldn't have had time.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Which is why people love absentee ballots.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Compulsory voting.
Makes it all easier.
(Seriously. I think it's fantastic, and never fail to be amazed at voter turnouts in non-compulsory voting systems.)
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "Voting is something that will take a few minutes, a couple of hours at most if turnout is extraordinarily good, out of one day every two years."
It took me nearly four hours in '04. Had I not had the day off, I wouldn't have had time.
Which is still an insignificant amount of time compared to the rest of the two years you have available for political outreach activities. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is it a good thing to have people who can't muster enough energy to care on their own be forced to participate, honestly?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "Voting is something that will take a few minutes, a couple of hours at most if turnout is extraordinarily good, out of one day every two years."
It took me nearly four hours in '04. Had I not had the day off, I wouldn't have had time.
Which is still an insignificant amount of time compared to the rest of the two years you have available for political outreach activities.
I'm not sure you can measure the value of a person's time so generically.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why is it a good thing to have people who can't muster enough energy to care on their own be forced to participate, honestly?
Because they are forced to participate.
Firstly because *everyone* votes - which means the result is, at least, a true majority decision (and in Australia, that means all elections are on weekend and all employers must give their employees time to vote).
Secondly, because when people are forced to vote that means all minorities (race/gender) are actually represented.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I can do a lot of useless things in a small amount of time. That doesn't give me any particular incentive to want to do them. Why spend even 10 minutes voting if your vote makes zero difference.
I could spend 10 minutes yelling my candidate's name into a pillow too, it wouldn't be a significant amount of time, but why bother?
I only vote if there's a chance my vote might make a difference. If there were a presidential election and my state was reporting almost exactly 50% distribution between candidates, I'd vote, because there would be a tiny chance of my vote making a difference.
It isn't that I'm against voting. I'm against doing meaningless acts and pretending that they're meaningful. I'm against self-deception. I'm against remaining powerless while telling yourself you're powerful.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why is it a good thing to have people who can't muster enough energy to care on their own be forced to participate, honestly?
Because they are forced to participate.
Firstly because *everyone* votes - which means the result is, at least, a true majority decision (and in Australia, that means all elections are on weekend and all employers must give their employees time to vote).
Secondly, because when people are forced to vote that means all minorities (race/gender) are actually represented.
I'd be okay with that.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"I could spend 10 minutes yelling my candidate's name into a pillow too"
Kerry you indecisive pansy #$%@*!
*sob*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I very much against compulsory voting.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
in Canada the government keeps track of every nonvoter, so that the moment you complain the government sends you a letter telling you to shutup as since you didnt vote your voice doesn't matter as you lost your right to complain.
My mom doesn't vote and her letter was written by Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I used to be deeply against compulsory voting, but I'm warming up to the idea. Caring or not caring about the fate of the Union does not make you any more or less a citizen of the democracy.
This isn't a comfortable position for me. I don't particularly like or respect a majority of Americans, and probably less so, a majority of the likely voting public, but I do believe that if we are going to be a democratic nation, we should commit fully and not only when the ballot will produce seemingly convenient results.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: in Canada the government keeps track of every nonvoter, so that the moment you complain the government sends you a letter telling you to shutup as since you didnt vote your voice doesn't matter as you lost your right to complain.
My mom doesn't vote and her letter was written by Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien.
Surely you're joking.
If not, thank God I don't live in Canada.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
nope not joking, we have a rather nasty letter from Jean Chretien lying around about how my mom lost her right to complain when she didn't vote. And yes they know this because while they dont keep track who you vote for, they sure as hell keep track of those who don't. a pox on society they are, i think to recieve government benefits should be tied to whether or not you vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This isn't a comfortable position for me. I don't particularly like or respect a majority of Americans, and probably less so, a majority of the likely voting public, but I do believe that if we are going to be a democratic nation, we should commit fully and not only when the ballot will produce seemingly convenient results.
There's nothing in my definition of the word democracy that includes using force to compel voting. To me, democracy means the right and ability to directly participate in your own government.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: in Canada the government keeps track of every nonvoter, so that the moment you complain the government sends you a letter telling you to shutup as since you didnt vote your voice doesn't matter as you lost your right to complain.
My mom doesn't vote and her letter was written by Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien.
Surely you're joking.
If not, thank God I don't live in Canada.
I'm pretty sure it's an aberration. I've never heard of that before, and I'm pretty sure we would have mentioned it in my poli sci classes.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: in Canada the government keeps track of every nonvoter, so that the moment you complain the government sends you a letter telling you to shutup as since you didnt vote your voice doesn't matter as you lost your right to complain.
My mom doesn't vote and her letter was written by Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien.
Surely you're joking.
If not, thank God I don't live in Canada.
I'm pretty sure it's an aberration. I've never heard of that before, and I'm pretty sure we would have mentioned it in my poli sci classes.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: in Canada the government keeps track of every nonvoter, so that the moment you complain the government sends you a letter telling you to shutup as since you didnt vote your voice doesn't matter as you lost your right to complain.
My mom doesn't vote and her letter was written by Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien.
Surely you're joking.
If not, thank God I don't live in Canada.
I'm pretty sure it's an aberration. I've never heard of that before, and I'm pretty sure we would have mentioned it in my poli sci classes.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)